For the first time since Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a Republican-appointed judge has voted to uphold Congress's power to enact the health care reform law, including the minimum coverage provision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the first court of appeals to rule on the merits of the issue, issued its ruling today in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton--a prominent conservative appointed by President George W. Bush--agreed with his colleague, Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter-appointee, that the lawsuit by the Thomas More Legal Center should be thrown out. In doing so, Judge Sutton has transformed the debate over the Affordable Care Act and powerfully advanced the cause of judicial independence.
Much had been made of the fact that the district court judges who had considered the merits of the constitutional challenges to the Act had split along partisan lines: two Republican-appointed judges held the minimum coverage provision was unconstitutional, while two Democratic-appointed judges upheld the provision's constitutionality. But with today's ruling, supported by a pair of judges considered, respectively, to be quite liberal and quite conservative, the American people are reminded that when judges do their job, the outcome depends not on which President appointed them, but on the law. And whether one thinks the Affordable Care Act is good or bad policy, it is constitutional. As Judge Sutton wrote, "Call this mandate what you will--an affront to individual autonomy or an imperative of national health care--it meets the requirement of regulating activities that substantially affect health care."
Judge Sutton also blew out of the water the major theme of the challengers' argument--a theme that plays well on TV and talk radio, but has absolutely no constitutional basis. The Act's challengers have vigorously pressed the argument that by allowing the federal government to require those who can afford it to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, the courts will give Congress carte blanche to regulate all sorts of other "inactivity." But Judge Sutton rightly noted that "No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care, as self-insurance and private insurance are two forms of action for addressing the same risk. Each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce."
Nonetheless, as Judge Sutton acknowledged, there is an intuitive appeal of this argument for most Americans, one that leads to the big-government nightmares of forced broccoli eating or mandated gym memberships. But Sutton makes clear that the Constitution does place limits on Congress's power beyond simply the Commerce Clause that would not leave Congress free to require Americans to do fifty push-ups every morning. As Sutton writes, "even the most powerful intuition about the meaning of the Constitution must be matched with a textual and enforceable theory"--and sound bites about government run amok in circumstances that the Constitution would clearly not allow do not make the cut.
On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit's ruling today does reaffirm another American intuition--that our Nation's judiciary is more independent and less partisan than our other branches of government. The judgment by Judge Boyce Martin and Judge Jeffrey Sutton that Congress has the power to enact the minimum coverage provision under the Constitution's Commerce Clause shows that constitutional disputes should, when the judiciary is working properly, turn on the text and history of our Nation's charter and controlling Supreme Court decisions. Today's ruling is certainly a win for the Obama Administration, but it is also a victory for the Constitution and our judicial system.
Appellate Court Judge Rules Obamacare Is Constitutional
Federal Appeals Court Upholds ACA's Individual Mandate
Bush-Appointed Judge Sides With Democrats on Health-Care Reform
Anyone else?
Maybe the good judge could point to the poer to regulate activities that substantially affect health care?
Lots of lawyers support lots of conclusions, such as those in Dred Scott or Bush v Gore or Roe v Wade and guess what, most of them are 180 degrees apart and can only decided by who has more people on their side.
The REAL rule is what does the Constitution say, not to what partisan ideology to you subscribe.
There will always be Republican judges saying crazy stuff not based in the Constitution and Democrat judges saying crazy stuff not based in the Constitution, but hardly ANY that actually base their rulings on the Constitution. Why is that? They are not allowed to become Federal judges because they are weeded out during the confirmation process and are generally never even appointed because......they get in the way and the Amendment Process is hard.
Read Justice Thomas's dissent in Raich. He was one of only a couple that had a clue. Scalia RATONALIZED because he doesn't like marijuana apparently.
Thomas Jefferson
It's not that there's "no real limit on the government's authority", it's that there's no authority at all.
Nonetheless, a SCOTUS majority found her actions affected interstate commerce.
If homegrown medical marijuana affects interstate commerce, I suspect it would be difficult for them to say the healthcare insurance industry doesn't.
And their stated opposition to it is just a ploy to get the democrats to take credit for passing something so unpopular and they were never serious about blocking it?
I hate to be one of these people...but I told you so
They did not have a majority in the Senate or the House at the time. It was rammed through.
"The bill passed in a 219-212 vote after more than a year of bitter partisan debate. All 178 Republicans opposed it, along with 34 Democrats."
Silly facts get in the way sometimes.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS
At least the Republican senators didn't run off to Illinois to hide from the vote.
Unlike say the public option, which the republicans are actually ideolically opposed to. Somehow they managed to block that one didn't they
But susprise surprise, Bob Dole's old healthcare plan was liked by conservatives. Considering its a conservative plan, with the original intent being to stop those freeloaders at the emergency room. So it passed. And what's more they made it so you passed it, and therefore get blamed
Which side was supporting it then?
Did they all the sudden have a massive ideology shift to caring about the freedom of the individual, or are they still the type of people who are upset at the freeloaders in the emergency room
But Judge Sutton rightly noted that "No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care, as self-insurance and private insurance are two forms of action for addressing the same risk. Each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce."
One can say this about buying bread or milk or clothing. So what if every one buys it? The market should determine the best products and services. Not the government. The government can't spend money well, they cant take care of disasters - do you want the same people that screwed up Katrina to run your health care? Its crazy....
This is very bad folks...
That's the purpose of the individual mandate in the bill, which has been described as a 'managed market' system. It imposes market forces on the healthcare providers so that the greater 'demand' for healthcare insurance caused by increasing the pool of people requiring it to reduce the cost overall. The government doesn't decide the best products and services, it only requires that insurers not eliminate people from the healthcare pool for pre-existing conditions and that everyone have a minimum level of healthcare in order to 'manage' the market. It's very similar to the no-fault insurance law for automotive insurance that I'm sure your state has.
Well, the same power it has to warrantless wire tap you or arrest you for smoking weed.
My question is how are we going to pay for this health care program if the economy is strained now? Over 40% of people now dont pay any taxes.
How are we going to pay for this if we cant even cut a $1 from a $1.6 Trillion deficit? And without hurting the economy from both a supply and demand side....
Please someone tell me?
This is all about handouts folks...handouts...and its not right or moral...
Now if only we could get a Supreme Court that acts that way.
Charlie
What concerns me is what is this - we always know that government ALWAYS overreaches - who works for who?:
"Nonetheless, as Judge Sutton acknowledged, there is an intuitive appeal of this argument for most Americans, one that leads to the big-government nightmares of forced broccoli eating or mandated gym memberships. But Sutton makes clear that the Constitution does place limits on Congress's power beyond simply the Commerce Clause that would not leave Congress free to require Americans to do fifty push-ups every morning"
There is never limits for progressive government - its just not possible to limit it for bureacracies will grow around it and will want more and more power - witness the EPA, the Education Department - even Presidents - this is very dangerous stuff...
If forced health care insurance is valid, so is forcing people to go to church.
Our constiitution is completely outdated and does not really apply to most areas of modern law
There is no way of simply interperting the constitution for the right descision, or I guess there is but it's close to how Clarence Thomas votes, no on everything federal
If you were to listen to your sid of the debates constitutional argument I'm sure that even you would call BS on it. Something about the commerce clause.. Its really quite a stretch. But that's fine,our constituion isn't nearly as good as people think it is
Perhaps you could show me the words "health care" in the Constitution.
Now suppose you tell me why a healthy population isn't in the interest of the general welfare of the United States.
A healthy population may be in the "general welfare" of the US, but there is no power to do anything about it in the Constitution, that is reserved for the states who were considered to be best to deal with it.
See the above James Madison quote, here I'll give you a few more -
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
Thomas Jefferson